Their are definite problems with the NBA's salary structure/contracts but I just see this as an attempt to by the owners to use somewhat diminished economic conditions to completely roll over the players.

I pay to see the players and not billionaire/multi-millionaire owners extract a better operating income.

Was the Brand signing a mistake? Attaboy Dannie, way to ask a philly.com question.

Brian wasn't the "Allan Houston rule" also called the amnesty clause?

Last time we were in a lockout I felt as if the 3 headed monster tandem of Zo, Dikembe, and Ewing basically were calling all the shots for the players and basically were at fault for the cba that came of it. I am hoping that Fisher and Foyle do a better job this time.

I think it's cute that I have a blog/internet stalker. But at least if you are going to do it, do it under your real name. I find it ironic that you call me a "punk" yet you choose to hide your own identity. Meh.

Brian/all I apologize in advance if this person hijacks the thread with "Dannie is a punk" insults.

Anyway, I am asking a specific question to elicit a specific person's opinion.

The money wrapped up with Brand/Iguodala/Lou combined to me is a mistake. BUT, what I want to know is from Brian's perspective, on the court, do you think bringing Brand here was a mistake given that I know Brian (many people) wants the team built around defense and rebounding.

At the time I liked the move under the assumption that Brand could actually still play at a high level for at least 3 to 4 years of the deal. More specifically, play at a high level immediately.

At the time I think many of us thought we needed a PF who could board, defend and provide some reliable half court offense on the low block. Brand, on the surface seemed to fit the bill.

So I was okay with the move. Then he had that fluke shoulder injury that derailed any sort of progress the team could have made.

My issue with the team after the Brand and Iguodala signings was I wasn't happy with the rest of the roster for the most part if we were really go for a win now approach. Sam, Brand and Iguodala as starting pieces was cool.

Andre Miller didn't quite fit but he still would help the team as a veteran point guard and I wished they would have had a better exit strategy with him, even if it was for a draft pick or an adequate shooter at the point, SG or SF.

I've never been a fan of Thad as a starter. Love him as a bench guy though. Never really been a fan of Lou in general. Speights was an unknown. Willie was Willie. And on down the line.

In terms of getting production for your money, yeah I don't think you can really classify it any other way at this point. Given his age, you were really paying him for the first three years of the contract, then hoping he didn't fall off too much in the last two.

Philosophically, do I think it was a mistake? No, not at all. He was the BPA in free agency. Prior to the injury he was really the ideal guy for this team. A PF who boards, blocks shots and can score the ball efficiently in the half court. I don't fault Stefanski for believing he'd take the team to the next level. I guess if you're going to find fault in the move, I'd like to know what kind of doctors they had look at him, and also what kind of research they did into recovery from torn Achilles in other athletes.

To answer your other questions, no I still don't think I'd trade Iguodala simply to get rid of Brand's contract. I might do anything short of that, but I still believe if you trade Iguodala you're going to spend a decade trying to get another player like him.

"I still believe if you trade Iguodala you're going to spend a decade trying to get another player like him."

A decade? I'd say that in each draft there's an average of two players as good or better than he is. Some years there are none, some years there are four or five. If you strike out this year and don't take talent back, then you'll be bad again and get another shot next year. And so on. Nor do you need the lottery to go in your favor, a top 5 pick is nearly as good as a top 2 pick. So you pick and you pick and things eventually turn around. If you think about the teams that were in the cellar 7 or 8 years ago - Cavs, Clippers, Grizzlies, Heat, Nuggets, Bulls, Raptors, Hawks - very few of them are bad now, some are really good, or in the case of the Heat, already have won a Finals since escaping from the cellar, and the ones that are bad now did succeed in bringing in talent and found ways to squander it.

The opening salvo, standard negotiation tactic, ask for the world, but you'll settle for less.

I don't know that there will be a long lock out but this is going to take a while. I expect the BRI number to come down, I expect shorter contracts and probably lower max values.

HOWEVER

Yes the NBA can play hard ball, but without players, they have no league, they will get things they want but they'll have to give things up as well...be interesting to see how it all works out in the end.

The short summary is that 1. a healthy chunk of teams are losing money, and 2. despite how much money the players have earned, an alarming number of them actually live paycheck to paycheck--a fact of which the owners are well aware.

Simmons' theorizes that the owners know their best leverage at the bargaining table will occur only after these ballers stare down their weekly bills without any money coming in.

Given that perhaps as much as 25% of the teams are losing money, the owners have plenty of incentive to go nuclear.

It's a fairly convincing premise, I think. If it's true, I think we can anticipate some serious rollbacks in the next CBA...

Sorry to rehash old arguments... but basically have always been philosophically against the Brand signing (although was excited to see him on the team.) Here is the core of my problem with the Brand signing at the time:

1. The team had suffered in order to get cap flexibility and build a core of decent young talent. The team had promise, but was years from really knowing how the young players would progress. Locking themselves to a long term "Philly-max" deal risked throwing this freedom away. And if the pieces did not fit it would be hard to make moves because Brand's salary was structured so he would be a bargain up front but overpaid on the back end.

-The counter was they had to "use it or lose it" with the cap space... But there were ways to use the cap space without making a long term commitment- such as trading for Camby and his 2 years remaining or taking on other short contracts to save others from the tax, and getting picks/talent in return.

2. They were too concerned about "fit." Brand was the best fit in terms of their current issues, but That team IMO was way to young to worry about this. I'd have preferred them to add another good young player (maybe Smith) and then figure it out later. They should have used the cap space to continue to acquire as much young talent as possible, and then plan on making decisive moves in 2-3 years when players had developed to where you can possibly be a contender with the right "fit."

3. Most successful teams get their superstar first and then over 3-4 years add the complementary pieces. the Sixers locked themselves to Iguodala and Brand, who are great complements to a superstar. The went "Pistons style" which in most cases is bass ackwards.

========================================

So instead of a win now with Brand/Miller, I would have stayed young and raw for 2-3 years. Be happy with a 40-50 win team that can't contend initially instead of trying to win right away. Then, as the younger players started to enter their prime, you look to add the finishing piece. probably sending some expirings (Sam, Green, etc) young talent and picks for the right older superstar (the kind that hit the market almost every year.)

1. ATL was matching any offer to Josh Smith, I don't think he was ever a viable option.
2. There was really no other FA signing to be made that summer. If it wasn't Brand, it was probably Maggette, and his deal isn't exactly smelling like a rose right now.
3. If they had traded for Camby, assuming they still signed AI9 and Lou for the contracts they eventually signed, they wouldn't have had any cap space last summer, and they'd probably have minimal cap space this summer (less than $10M).

Yes, they'd be better off from this point forward, but the team basically would've been intentionally in a holding pattern for the past 18 months. At the time of the signing we were a borderline team on the rise in a weak conference. Adding Brand, if he had been healthy, could've/would've/should've made us relevant in the East, meaning a deep run in the playoffs, possibly more depending. It didn't work out that way, but it was the right move IMO. Otherwise you cleared all that cap space to do nothing with it for what, three or four years?

But like you said, you were hoping to get the best of Brand for the first 2-3 years, knowing full well that even at their best, that team would have HUGE holes defensively and with a lack of a perimeter threat competing against the boston/orlando/cleveland juggernaut. just theoretically, the right answer was definitely to wait for the next sum of talent that could match blows with those 3 teams. as defensively good as we might have been (with a good coach) those teams are even better defensively, and much better offensively, and now here we are - stuck. Good enough to be around .500. facts are facts.

First of all, Orlando was really nothing at the time. An upstart with huge question marks. They emerged last season. Second, the Boston collapse that's happening right now was entirely predictable. Cleveland was the team that looked like a possible powerhouse in the East. And could the team, as intended, contend with them? Maybe.

As for defensive holes, I don't get that argument at all. Not only was SD, EB, TY, AI, AM a good defensive team on paper, they were a dominant defensive team on the floor before Brand's injury.

There's no way that line up would convince me that they could beat those 3 teams last year or the year before, or next year. No way. On paper it sounds great, until you play them at get mashed on year after year in a playoff series. I'd say they'd be as good as ATL , maybe a bit better, if Elton was as healthy as he is now.

My views are mixed on this. Brand was, once, a really great player. But even in his best year he only got to the second round, and that team had quite a bit of talent. You'll say we would've been better defensively, but they were pretty good, 8th in the league. Would we have put up more points than that team did? I don't see us being a better offensive unit. They had Cassell, Maggette, Kaman, Mobley, a pretty great shooter off the bench at the time in Radmanovic. That's at least commensurate with Iguodala, Young, Miller, and Lou to me. I never believed Brand was anywhere near as good as Duncan. You can look at his numbers and they were quite impressive, but he made the playoffs once. I think a healthy Brand-Iguodala tandem would have won about 52 games and lost to any one of the big three.

Since we're in the realm of hypothetical, 52 wins last season is the #4 seed, probably a first-round win in the playoffs, and then a loss to Cleveland in the second round. It's also probably a huge uptick in attendance and excitement about the team. Which most likely leads to the Sixers being a buyer rather than a seller, both last summer and at this trade deadline. The luxury tax isn't avoided like the plague and perhaps they can add a piece or pieces to push them into the finals contender area.

Reality check Brian: Ig is healthy, Brand is healthy, Dalembert is heroicly healthy amidst the Haiti tragedy, lou will / willie green are taking up the slack for Andre Miller because we ____couldnt afford a 33+ yr old point guard (so much for uptick in enthusiasm and free agent destination theory) and we've added a year of experience to Thad, Speights, and a minature gary payton.

What's the excuse now? Eddie Jordan is THAT bad of a coach to take us from a 52 win fan favorite to a 33 win team?

I used the word hypothetical for a reason, and Tray (arguing the other side of the coin) is the one who threw out the 52 number.

Anyway, w/out Jordan I believe we could've had a team that performed defensively somewhere around the level they've performed over the past 10 games (defensive efficiency rating of 103.4), which would put them in the top ten in the league. Say the OFR drops maybe half a point, just to be fair to Jordan, and that's a 2-point spread. That would put us in the same range as Dallas and Portland, on their level of performance.

And you also kind of missed the point of my comment. Had Brand not gone down last season. Had he played like the guy he was for the Clippers for 82 games, undoubtedly the team would've been better and there would've been more interest in the team. Meaning it's less likely Miller is allowed to walk. It's more likely they add a piece, instead of subtracting. And it's much more likely the team is willing to go over the luxury tax to get over that final hump.

I feel you man, and it makes sense. Defensively they'd be top 10, it just seems the winning of playoff games seems like a bit of a stretch. I can't imagine the next piece they'd need to put them over the hump. Who could they acquire that would make a difference. Let's take a look at salaries:

Now lets say you don't sign Kapono, and they win 52 games in 08-09 season and lose to Cleveland or Boston in the 2nd round after beating Miami or ATL. Seems reasonable I believe. The only teams we couldnt beat in the Eastern were ORL/BOS/CLE.

After losing in say 5 or 6 games. You're the GM this year. You have a soft cap at 57.7M and a luxury cap at 70M. That means your cap figure is 60.6M. What do you do for the next 2-3 years. (the cap figure only goes up in 2010-2011)

One good point you make though, however, is that if Brand had played amazing after surgery. Let's say you can keep Miller. At least this team would know where its going. With the way shit went down last year, Brand being injured, Stefanski got confused and lost direction with this team. He lets go one of the key cogs, takes a step backwards with no real fill-in for Miller. Even then the team isnt elite, but still, at least this team might know which way it was going.

Yeah, I think a #4 seed with prime Brand is conceivable. Fairly likely even. But this piece that we'd need to make us a legit contender would have to be something pretty good. I think that team could contend if you slid Iguodala to the 3 and got a really efficient scorer at the 2 who could shoot. Not just a shooter, someone putting up about 18-22 a game. Such a team, I'll grant you, could stack up to Orlando and Cleveland.

And as Shawn points out, whom could we afford? The kind of piece I'm talking about comes with a pretty high salary attached. Somebody like Hamilton if he were still good, Ben Gordon, Michael Redd, maybe Monta... it would have to be a big piece. I mean, Cleveland's a fantastic team and they're not talking about adding someone of the ilk of an Eddie House, they're looking at Iguodala and Jamison. Semi-All-Star players.

I really like this trade, instantly makes the sixers a Championship contender. And quite possibly the extends this 4 game winning streak to to 36 games. what are you guys thoughts? As much as i would hate to lose elton brand and his contract i think this is the right move. http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yz38rs4

sixerfan1976 wrote:
"no team in the lead more than another...teams dont get real serious til after the break...72 hour frenzy starts monday. i think we want to do something just wont do a deal just to do a deal.

dont want to be a broken record

phoenix-kapono/dalembert/andre for amare/jrich.
phoenix doesnt know if they want to move amare for sure

dallas-brand/iguodala for howard/dampier/gooden/barea
dallas also after caron butler..if they get him.....this talk is done

i think we will do something..it may just be small like kapono for someone if we dont find a bigger deal to our liking

i really dont know whats going on with houston.....not hearing much one way or other about them
"

TK I read yesterday that Cuban will only Rodrigue Beaubois for 2 or 3 people in the nba. Can you believe that? Isn't insane that if we trade them Iggy that they won't even part with there backup pg rookie?

I remember going to a Nets-Mavs game last year and watching Dirk warm up with this little fella. I thought it was really nice that Dirk was being really friendly with the ball boy until the game started and realized that the kid who I thought was the ball boy was really Barea.

I think that if dallas agreed to take brand off their hands with iguodala for dampier and howard the sixers would end up saying yes closer to the deadline - and if cuban thinks so too it's just a game of chicken and i bet comcast blinks first